'Vulgar' ads off air, ad industry guilty?

New Delhi: The Information and Broadcasting Ministry has banned television advertisements of two underwear brands on grounds that they are in “bad taste.” The ban comes within days of the Ministry’s releasing a draft-code for self-regulating the broadcast content on television channels.

The government-imposing ban on the two “obscene” commercials—the underwear ads by Lux Cozy and another by Amul Macho—has raised questions whether the advertising industry is guilty of making indecent ads?

National Creative Director of India’s largest advertising agency JWT, Josy Paul, consultant, Advertising Standard Council of India Bharat Patel and executive director, Centre for Advocacy and Research Akhila Sivadasa debated the issue on CNN-IBN show Face the Nation.

Is the advertising industry guilty of making indecent ads?

Josy Paul was of the view that it was unfair to slam the advertising industry for the indecent ads. “It is the very same industry that has produced famous slogans like Hamara Bajaj and churned out great ads like that of adhesive brand Fevicol and confectionary Alpenlibe,” Paul said.

Interestingly, the two ads were reviewed and okayed by the Advertising Standards Council of India—a self-regulatory body that regulates advertisements and ensures the content of the commercials should not be unethical, obscene, derogatory, misleading or in poor taste.

The body received complaints from consumer groups, acting upon which, in March 2007, ASCI had asked the advertisers to modify the ads. However despite the modification it kept getting complaints from viewers who said that the Amul Macho ad was “vulgar” and unfit for family viewing.

“I think the ad was modified a bit by the advertisers. However the ASCI and the I&B ministry kept receiving complaints on the ad which led the government to finally call for a ban,” said Bharat Patel.

The advertisers however argue that what’s “offensive” about the Amul Macho ad is actually clutter-breaking for it as a brand.

Perhaps what’s offensive about the ad is not the sexual connotation that it carries, but to watch a woman wash underwear in itself is derogatory and unethical. ASCI can regulate and ban commercials on grounds of obscenity. However it doesn’t have a code to stop ads that portray women in a derogatory light.

“More than the vulgarity and obscenity, the ad is derogatory. What’s really unfortunate about the ad industry is that it is really not breaking away from the stereotypes,” said Akhila Sivadasa.

The only point of merit in the Amul Macho commercial is that if a person’s lot in life is so miserable that she has to wash someone else’s dirty linen, the least you can do is have a good time doing it.

“Its just old wine in new bottle. The ad doesn’t say anything new. If the consumers find something obscene, they do take recourse to regulatory action,” said Sivadasa.

Is the advertising agency alone to blame?

Paul, who had worked on one of the two commercials, admitted that he himself wasn’t too happy to be associated with it.

So did that mean that the creative director—one who conceptualises the ad—faces extreme pressure from the marketing departments and the brands to make ad titillation enough for it to “stand out” in the crowd?

“I must say that I have been responsible for many such ads. And I am here to apologise as well. But in any communication there are four Cs—there is a client, the consumer, the channel and the creative agency. These four things together create an ad. Its not the creative agency that sits up and says ‘Oh today I’m going to create an indecent ad’. That doesn’t happen,” said Paul.

He said that it is the collective responsibility of the client, the consumer, the channel and the creative agency to ensure that an immoral, derogatory, objectionable material does not goes out.

“I hold myself individually and as an agency responsible. But I also want to say that you cannot hold the ad agency alone. There should be a collective responsibility,” Paul argued.

Incidentally both the ads in question carry popular brands names—Amul and Lux—that are also the registered trademarks of two separate, bigger companies Amul (milk products) and Lux (soaps).

“Both Amul and Lux names have been rubbed the wrong way,” said Bharat Patel.

Perhaps the government should so something about misleading trademarks as well.

The timing of this ad ban coincides with the release of a draft code of guidelines for self-regulation for broadcasters. It has invited even the public to comment by August 5.

“It is really unfortunate that advertising is the only sector in the entire industry that is ready to accept in principle, the rules of self regulation. In fact the rest of the industry is still sort of dilly-dallying and vacillating,” said Sivadasa.

“The Government going ahead and banning these two commercials will send out a very wrong signals. The government is attacking that area where it had some strength on-ground. In fact that if ASCI which is always touted as a role model for this section of the industry can accept the concept of self regulation, why not the others,” she concluded.

Final SMS poll result: Is the advertising industry guilty of making indecent ads?

Yes- 92 per cent

No –8 per cent

(For updates you can share with your friends, follow IBNLive on Facebook, Twitter, Google+ and Pinterest)

#advertisement #ban #Information and Broadcasting Ministry